DORANDULA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Vs. CHINTHALAPALLE RAMIREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition aroses out of an order passed in LA. No. 852/70 in O. S. No. 242/77 made under Order 26 Rule 9 and Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure directing the Commissioner appointed earlier in I. A. No. 663/77 for inspection of the suit locality to carry out the work sugested in his report to restore the Status quo as it existed on the date of his first inspection at the expense of the plaintiff.

(2.) Plaintiff who is the respondent herein filed a suit inter alia for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing on the plaint schedule land and from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same in any manner whatsoever. The plaint schedule property which is an extent of about Ac. 0. 04 cents of land, was originally a part of larger extent of Ac. 2. 36 cents in S. No. 960 of the Atmakur village belonging to Sreenivasa Lakshmidevamma. Lakshmi Deyamma sold in 1974 under two different sale deeds to 5 persons jointly, who constructed a Cinema hall over the said land excluding Ac. 0. 04 cents .from the said extent. This extent of Ac. d. 94 cents was sold to plaintiff on 11. 10. 1977, After taking possession the plaintiff got erected a compound wall with rough stones to a height of 3 feet all along the course of ABCD channel on his side as shown in the plaint sketch. It is further alleged in the plaint that the defendants 1 and 2 were advised that having regard to the shape of the land in S, No. 971, the contemplated construction of Cinema ball would not be perfect, unless they also acquire the plaint schedule land and annex the same after shifting the ABCD Channel from its present position to further east and having learnt that the land was sold to the plaintiff, they became desparate and felt aggrieved against the plaintiff as well as venders. So, with the help of defendants 3 to 6 and others they thought of annexing the plaint schedule land by force and when they were actually demolishing the compound wall so constructed and the stones being thrown into the ABCD channel with a view to close it up and also noticing that some of them have engaged in excavating a new channel along side the said wall m the plaint schedule property and when their protests were of no avail, they have rushed to the Court and filed the said sun for permanent injunction. Defendants while generally denying the allegations stated tbat the irrigation channel as shown in the sketch as ABCD is absolutely false, though it is true that it is an ancient channel. It was contended tbat Lakshmrdevamma the original vendor was in enjoyment of S. No. 960 extended upto the western ridge ot the alleged ABCD channel and the land m S. No. 971 was upto the other side of the ridge of the alleged ABCD channel and that the alleged ABCD channel constituted the boundary of both the lands were also tarse and the allegations made are invented for the purpose of the suit. The plaintiff filed 1. A. No. 66.2/77 for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession and enjoyment ot the suit schedule land and also filed I. A. No. 662/77 for the appointment of a Commissioner tor a local inspection. The interim orders passed in I. A. No. 663/77 directing the status quo of the suit locality and the old irrigation channel and the newly dug channel were allowed to exist until further orders. Thereafter the Commissioner's report was filed, wherein it is slated that having received the Commission Warrant on 26. 10. 77 at about 4. 30 P. M., he inspected the suit locality "on the same date at about 5.00 P. M. in the presence of the plaintiff and his advocate after informing the defendants' advocate. He had a view ot the suit lcoailty regarding the physical features and postponed his inspection proper to 29. 10. 1977 evening and gave notice. The defendant's advocate endorsed on the notice tor postponment till the next day. Therefore, be inspected the suit locality in the afternoon of 30. 10 1977 in the presence ot plantiff and his advocate. Neither the defendant's nor their advocate were present at tbat time. But the defendants' advocate is said to have given a work memo. At the close of the inspection defendants 1 and 2 went and stated that they have nothing to say.

(3.) In the Commissioner's plan the marked portion Map is the Srinivasa Mahal proper. A vacant site is shown to be in front of it and a wall from 'X' to 'Y' to a height of about 4 feet from the ground level. It is further stated in the report as under: